PsiChick:taurusowner: PsiChick: If enough people with mohawks are spraying silly string at people, and I see someone with a mohawk reach into their pocket, I'm just gonna assume it's silly string. Because at some point, you have to either use statistics to make an educated guess, or end up hurt\dead\arrested on false pretenses\having your crap stolen\otherwise victimized.

Except you're not doing that. You're using cherry picked stories from the media that show a unrealistic and disproportionate amount of corrupt cops because that's what draws viewers. There are roughly 1.1 million police in the US. You're really me that with your keen mind for statistics, you have seen real data showing most of them are corrupt? No the occasional Youtube video or sensational news report don't count.

If you want to just hate cops, that's fine. But don't start claiming it's because you made a reasoned judgement based on statistic unless you're willing to show those statistics.

Since it's one of the least reported things cops do...

Tell you what, though--you go ahead and tot up the number of examples. There's not that many, right? Shouldn't be, oh, easily in the millions, right? After all, there's only so many police officers...

Put them on the 10% officers that have the most complaints against them. Evaluate complaint counts monthly/quarterly. Adjust who wears them accordingly.

Regarding the officer being able to turn off the video in places where a reasonable expectation of photo/video privacy can be expected, allow them to turn it off, but while it is off, keep audio capture running. Do not allow audio to be turned off.

ottebx:Regarding the officer being able to turn off the video in places where a reasonable expectation of photo/video privacy can be expected, allow them to turn it off, but while it is off, keep audio capture running. Do not allow audio to be turned off.

Uh, no. We've already seen recordings of cops beating people who are clearly not resisting, while shouting "stop going for my gun!" or "stop resisting". There's a video linked in this thread showing a cop tackling a guy after shouting "don't farking touch me! Don't farking touch me!" despite the guy not touching him at all, the cop knowing that the guy's camera wasn't pointed him but would pick up audio (and not realizing that there was another person filming).

Since we know that cops will lie in audio recordings, we cannot give them the discretion to turn off video.

LeGnome:As a law enforcement officer, you do not have a right to privacy in the execution of your duties. That is all.

Is a private conversation with a co-worker or supervisor considered "in the execution of your duties?" Do the people you're talking to have an expectation of privacy that should be respected? How about if you're in a restaurant and a couple cops sit down in the next booth to have lunch and you know they're recording everything within earshot, including your conversation? Would you be comfortable with that?

As the article states, this issue isn't as simple as it might seem. Recording every contact the police have creates lots of issues and concerns both from the perspective of the police and from the public. It creates privacy concerns as well as legal concerns.

CruiserTwelve:LeGnome: As a law enforcement officer, you do not have a right to privacy in the execution of your duties. That is all.

Is a private conversation with a co-worker or supervisor considered "in the execution of your duties?" Do the people you're talking to have an expectation of privacy that should be respected? How about if you're in a restaurant and a couple cops sit down in the next booth to have lunch and you know they're recording everything within earshot, including your conversation? Would you be comfortable with that?

As the article states, this issue isn't as simple as it might seem. Recording every contact the police have creates lots of issues and concerns both from the perspective of the police and from the public. It creates privacy concerns as well as legal concerns.

When you're on the job, you're on the job. When you're in public, you're in public.

CruiserTwelve:LeGnome: As a law enforcement officer, you do not have a right to privacy in the execution of your duties. That is all.

Is a private conversation with a co-worker or supervisor considered "in the execution of your duties?"

As suggested above, let the cop turn the camera off, and, should anything that occurs during that time period be used in a prosecution, the jury should be instructed to infer that something either incriminating was done by the officer or something exculpatory occurred by a defendant.

In other words, if you're just shooting the shiat with your co-worker and you want to turn the camera off, feel free... but if you then suddenly decide to arrest someone for looking at you funny "obstructing an officer and resisting arrest", then you better turn that camera back on first, or the jury gets to assume that you're just harassing an innocent person.That protects you taking a leak, changing at the station, talking to your supervisor, etc., since you're not going to be arresting anyone during those time periods, right?

Do the people you're talking to have an expectation of privacy that should be respected?

If they're talking to a cop, no - the cop is writing down every word they say, right?

How about if you're in a restaurant and a couple cops sit down in the next booth to have lunch and you know they're recording everything within earshot, including your conversation? Would you be comfortable with that?

As noted above, that's not private. Say you're in the restaurant booth planning how to rob a jewelry store and a cop sits down in the next booth to have lunch - do they need to run out and get a warrant to eavesdrop? Hell, no. If the cop is sitting right there, listening and taking notes, how is it any different if he's also got a recorder going?

Theaetetus:As suggested above, let the cop turn the camera off, and, should anything that occurs during that time period be used in a prosecution, the jury should be instructed to infer that something either incriminating was done by the officer or something exculpatory occurred by a defendant.

That's not realistic. In the real world things happen unexpectedly. In addition, that rule is based on a mistrust of the police which is also unrealistic and undeserved.

You obviously don't trust the police. Fortunately you're in the minority. You've chosen to base your opinion on Fark threads and You Tube videos. It's like basing an opinion of "liberals" on what you hear from Rush Limbaugh.

I wish you, and many others, could spend a year as a cop and see what life is really like. It's nothing at all what you think it is.